“Fixing a Hole” is a new series whose sole purpose is to review films that have not yet been covered on Wonders in the Dark. The theme for October is “Universal Horror.” Some spoilers are discussed below.

While Joel has selected all the titles, certain films have been assigned to guest writers. This week, Exodus 8:2‘s own Jaime Grijalba digs up the two Draculas: the English- and Spanish-language versions, shot simultaneously in 1931.

written by Louis Bromfield, Tod Browning, Max Cohen, Dudley Murphey, Louis Stevens from the play by Hamilton Deane, John L. Balderston, Garret Fort from the novel by Bram Stoker • photographed by Karl Freund • designed by Charles D. Hall, John Hoffman, Herman Rosse • no music • edited by Milton Carruth

The Story: On a dark and stormy night, an Englishman arrives at a gloomy castle in Transylvania and meets Count Dracula, who would like to invite him for a drink.

written by B. Fernandez Cue, Dudley Murphey from the play by Hamilton Deane, John L. Balderston, Garret Fort from the novel by Bram Stoker • designed by Charles D. Hall • music by David Broekman • edited by Andrew Cohen

The only survivor of a practice that was more common than anyone would admit, Drácula, the Spanish version of the Tod Browning film Dracula, is also from 1931, filmed at the same time with the same sets and the same script, but with different actors, directors, DP’s, everything. Universal, of all the studios, used to do this all the time, not to expand the film to foreign Spanish-talking regions (that was more of a consequence) but more to appease the growing Latino population that began not only to populate the United States. And also to compensate with work the many Latino-related actors and actresses that came to Hollywood to find a work and a way to shine in the movies, even if they didn’t really speak any English, which I don’t know if it’s the case of this particular case, but I’m pretty sure there are some who are.

Anyway, back to the films. Dracula may be one of the most famous movies in the world, much like Frankenstein, because you don’t need to actually see it to know what it’s about. You can sometimes predict what the acting, the framing, the sets and all the little details will be: countless parodies, remakes and maybe a genetic memory have been important when we give this film the status of legend. Maybe it’s Lugosi, or Browning, or Frye, or who knows what it is, maybe the cinematography has something familiar that resonates with us when we see it for the first time, as if it were a world that we already know, but that we longed to return to, a film that has always played in our minds until we see it for the first time, and that’s when the film will start playing in your heart.

And maybe that’s the reason why Drácula, the Spanish version of the classic film, is so fresh to the eyes and the mind. It’s different. You react to it in a different manner; the film feels like when you remember a half-forgotten dream, when you see a full vision of what a parallel universe could’ve been if you’d chosen the blonde and not the brunette. Because it is the full vision and scope of what Dracula, the legendary character and its story, can be, this version being far more complete, especially when you watch these two back to back in what can be one of the most splendid double features. While you are in awe due to the visual and poetic nature of the English version, then you are surprised and admiring the longer and more paused plot of the Spanish version, as well as its bold visual and camera style.

It’s funny when you see a film you love so much, like Dracula, and then you end up watching Drácula, particularly when you do speak Spanish, natively, with no aid of subtitles. You recognize most of the characters and you remember which actors played what in each version, and then the needed thing begins: comparisons. While they are not always fair, it’s impossible for a Universal fan to not begin to compare between these two equally great films (I needed to say that now). And it’s not because I speak Spanish, but I’m tending to favor the Villarías starring film over the Lugosi shining acting vehicle, but just by a hair.

I’ll say that it’s more fun to watch Drácula than Dracula. The performances in many of the supporting roles are more complete and they feel as real characters, with really good supporting actors to support the information scenes (specially the nurses and wardens of the nuthouse), and for me, the Spanish Dr. Van Helsing is superior to the English speaking actor. Then we have the point that is always taken into account when you compare both of them: the camera moves and positionates in different and more interesting places in the Spanish-talking version. Who knows why, I’m guessing that they saw the dailies of the film that shot during the day, and they shot during the night knowing what to improve. It feels as a greater film in that sense, because you can live in the decorations that surround the characters, and that is something you don’t see every day this early in cinema.

This game deserves a better fame than it has today. But I’ll have to say this much: Dracula has Lugosi, and nothing in history will change the impact it had on horror cinema and our minds forever.

Jaime Grijalba has been writing for Wonders in the Dark for over a year. His work can also be found on Exodus 8:2, where he is currently wrapping up a horror-month retrospective called “31 Days of Horror”. (Look on the sidebar for language translation if you are not a Spanish-speaker.)

Like this:

Related

32 Responses

Jaime, that’s the story I’ve always heard: the Spanish-language crew got to see the Browning rushes, but none of the actors did, supposedly, except Villarias — but if the idea was to get him to imitate Lugosi it didn’t work, since the Spaniard gives a fussier, more volatile performance that’s of interest in its own right. Having seen the Melford version a few times now I’ve come back to preferring Browning for his concision and more dramatic framing, but the Spanish version is still worthy of regard on its own terms. And there are more surviving instances of foreign-language versions of early talkies: a German Anna Christie with Garbo reprising her role; a Spanish Free & Easy with Keaton speaking Spanish phonetically; Laurel & Hardy in phonetic Spanish and French, etc….

Oh, and the German version of ‘Murder’ by Hitchcock! There are many examples, but maybe this one is the most interesting to see because it was made with a different crew, a custom only made by Universal, I think.
Thanks for the comment, I think of them both equally, but I’m more eager to revisit the Spanish Drácula than Browning Dracula in the near future.

The Spanish version of Dracula doesn’t have Lugosi and thus will always be inferior. Yes it is by far the more cinematic worthy picture with fluid camera movement, editing, etc… but Villarias is a poor substitute as the lead. To be honest, I think both films are historically important while neither are even semi-good films. The stiffness is so overwhelming in the Browning version that the movie comes off as nothing more than a really bad staged play. How often (especially in the American picture) do we hear about what is happening off screen instead of being shown the actual images. Yes Dracula started the Universal horror movement, but it was quickly surpassed in the genre (even from other studios). Just compare it to Dr Jeckyll, Frankenstein, The Mummy, and Browning’s own Freaks, and we see a film that has not stood the test of time when it comes to cinematic quality. In fact 1932’s The Mummy is basically a superior remake and much more effective. Undoubtedly Dracula is an important movie in terms of the development of horror, but for me not one when it comes to actual greatness. Extremely overrated when compared to much that the genre threw out for audiences in the 30’s.

I’d agree if it wasn’t because of the legend-like status this film has. It’s a story that has surpassed the time and space of its creation. Stoker’s novel is a epistolary pool of legends, filled with many many leads so you can pull one and get another Dracula story. Dracula is a character that is legend, and just because of that this movie holds a dear place in every fan of cinema. Yeah, it could be better visually, but the atmosphere is just amazing, and the silence that sorrounds every scene makes your skin crawl.
I’d agree that this is a weaker link between all the movies you mentioned, except for The Mummy, which I think it’s good, but not as memorable as this one.

Yeah Sam The Mummy is a great picture. That scene you mention is incredible. I also love the opening with Bramwell Fletcher and those closeups of Ardeth Bay’s black eyes when he is hypnotizing someone. Also Imhotep’s rituals in a blackened museum with scrolls and resurrection chants are especially powerful. Freud took Browning’s story and made a superior film with the ingredients.

I was disappointed with The Mummy when I finally caught up with it a few years ago. (One of the great ironies of my film buff career, is that reading about the Universal horror films played an indelible role in its foundation, but not – oddly enough – watching them.) But I’ve had a burning urge to do watch it again ever since, and may do so again today if I can find it on You Tube, now that I finally have internet back!

Hi! Jaime Grijalva…
Unfortunately, I have not watched the 1931 film “Dracula” Starring Bela Lugosi in its entirety, but just snippets Of the Browning version…With that being said, this image over there at my blog booksandacupofcoffee
Of him [actor Bela Lugosi] is memorable and the video is too funny!
For two reasons:
First Of all, between 2:57 until 3:06 when the interviewer ask him do he believe in Vampires? and Secondly, the ending Of the video [I think that he [Bela Lugosi] used his role as Dracula to play a psychological mind game with the interviewer.
lol…]

Wow, that was fantastically weird! Lugosi and the girl reporter seem to be operating on entirely different wavelengths. I’ll have to check out some of those other interviews – what a bizarre slice of early Hollywood!

This one really does a butchers job on Stoker’s novel. It’s stagey and the updating can be off-putting.

However, this one is so atmospheric, detailed in sets and costumes and brilliantly performed by the actors that you cannot help but love it.

The first 30 minutes are some of the best in the entire horror film repotoire. Renfields ride up the Carpathian mountains to the castle, the first glimpses of the Count, the spilling of blood at the supper table. “I never drink VINE!”

Lugosi may have been hamming it up at every turn and pass, but he gives what many people believe is the greatest of all turns as the Count. It’s certainly the most iconic.

Something to be said though…

I don’t know what others think about the film accompanied by Phillip Glass’ modern score… However, I saw this a decade ago at the JOHN HARMS theatre in a neighboring town from where I live and it was accompanied by Glass and the KRONOS QUARTET performing the score live to the film. Having seen this film a few dozen times the old way (meaning without background music) and loving it, I figured this would be a ruination of the film I loved.

NOT SO…

I was dazzled by the effect the music had in enhancing the imagery and firing up sequences in the film. The film is creepier and just, I’ll say it, BETTER with the music. For me, it added another thread into the fabric of this film and makes it even richer that it was without it. I’ll take it either way; but I definately prefer the film with Phillip Glass’s music…

I don’t know Dennis…
I tried to see the film with the Phillip Glass score, but I found it turned me off. I like the silent atmosphere of the film, like you say, the film wins due to atmosphere and atmosphere alone, and that silence helps to build it, so for me, I’d say play it as silent as possible.

Interesting story: I was supposed to see Dracula screened outdoors in Prospect Park with Phillip Glass conducting a live orchestration of the soundtrack! But about 20 minutes in, out of nowhere, a monsoon-size downpour struck the park, everyone ran for cover and the event was cancelled.

So this past weekend is not the first time Dracula & bad weather went hand in hand!

It has it’s place for sure, but as everyone here has agreed on, it is inferior to the Lugosi DRACULA for all kinds of reasons. Not that the Lugosi is without some issues. The staginess that Dennis claims for the Spanish version creeps in after the buffo opening in the castle, but yes it is obviously more prevalent in the Spanish version. Villerias is all wrong.

I think both films have some faults and some great points, and they’re both enjoyable and equally great to me. I think Dennis was referring to a staginess present in both films, as in that time it was still hard to keep away from what has been called “filmed play”.
I’d say Villerías plays the part as best as he can, and he’s funny and great in the role he has been given. Knowing spanish is a great addendum to the film, as you understand the intonations of the performance, great stuff.

Jaime, that reminds me to ask whether Villarias attempts anything like a “Transylvanian” accent, since it’s impossible for me to tell. That aside, he deserves more credit for attempting his own interpretation of Dracula than he often gets. He’ll never be as masterful as Lugosi but that deliberate awkwardness, the excess politeness that lapses instantly into sour impatience or even petulance before snapping back is fascinating.

It is more due to Villerias’ weak acting and silly facial expressions. Lugosi while a ham, and not the greatest actor, brings a searing intensity to the role. Villerias just comes off as clownish. He forgets to fuse the camp aspects of the role with Bela’s potency and overwhelming sense of ferocity. Villerias could be speaking Korean for all we know… his turn is without bite and forcefulness.

Remember for me Lugosi is the only reason to see Browning’s Dracula. Without him the movie would be practically unwatchable. Who can truly sit through David Manners sniveling for 75 minutes and shots of armadillos roaming the Romanian countryside? Without Bela’s presence to make the effort worthwhile, the whole picture would collapse under its flawed structure.

I’m seeing clips to remember myself how was the acting.
It’s silly, but entertaining. And he speaks with a spanish accent, nothing really special, just as Lugosi spoke with his own accent.
I’m having the time of my life seeing the film, it’s more entertaining, and for me that’s enough.

I suppose I’m with the majority – I prefer the English language version as well. I do think the Spanish version is more consistent – the juveniles are infinitely better, there’s more attention to how to tell the story in every scene… While the English version is extremely uneven – the juveniles are very bad; but Lugosi and Frye are both iconic, and magnificent (especially Frye) – Sloan is no slouch. More than that, though, it looks like the filmmakers actually paid attention when Lugosi or Frye were in the scenes – the beginning of the film, and scenes with Dracula and Renfield later are far better by any standard than the scenes with the juveniles… the staging is better, the cutting is sharper, the sound design is stronger, and all are often quite good. Even the sound, which gets a bad rap – there’s more care in it then it gets credit for. Cuts on sound, use of offscreen sound – things like the way Renfield always seems to “appear” on the soundtrack before we see him – thought went into it, when they thought about it… Anyway – that said – I also think that the Mummy is, in fact, a better film – it’s almost a remake, and it’s as though Karl Freund had learned from the first one how to make a (complete) movie.

Ironically, given that I gave you the green light for this, I’m going to be one of the last to comment. An hour or so after I scheduled it in WordPress, I lost power for the weekend and only just gained it back this morning.

This was a great piece! I loved reading it, very engaging and insightful. I particularly loved the way you call up the sensation of seeing a film so iconic it’s become part of the bloodstream of popular culture, and then also the sensation of seeing a film similar to that film but a bit different, just off. The “half-forgotten dream” observation is right-on, I’ve definitely had those dreams where you’re “in a place” but yet it isn’t really like that place in reality at all, you just know it’s supposed to be – where a person is a person but upon waking up, you realize they actually look like someone else.

I kind of wish there were more experiences like this (the remakes/reboots are kind of the opposite phenomenon, cloaking something very different stylistically in samey storytelling clothes) where you could see the same film told twice with little variations. I suppose Bob will remind us the Special Editions and Evangelion rebuilds qualify, and that’s true, but it’s almost more interesting to see it in a more unconscious/subconscious way – like here the Spanish crew may have been trying to improve on the English version, but a lot of the differences are no doubt down to different styles or approaches. I think a big part of it is having different filmmakers at the helm…

Wow Joel, thanks a lot for the praise, and the reflection here is quite interesting. I think remakes are way too mudled with modern sensibilities that they tend to be really different to what they were in their day.

It was a great piece, no doubt about that, and the comment section has been terrific as well. Sorry you lost power Joel. Unfortunately we are still down, and not expected to have it back until Wednesday.

I lost it AGAIN after leaving that comment but luckily it came back hours later in the evening. Had it not, I think my decision sent to you via email might have been different, as the weather was already pushing me over the edge.

Top Clicks

Wonders in the Dark is a blog dedicated to the arts, especially film, theatre and music. An open forum is highly encouraged, as the site proctors are usually ready and able to engage with ongoing conversation.